So, there is a lot going on here, but I feel like I should throw out some general views of mine. Here we go...

One thing I don't like is that macro evolution is taught from a very young age, before you even know it's a theory. Who here didn't read about dinosaurs living 500 million years ago when you were five or six? As soon as the seventh grade I had nearly an entire semester devoted to the subject. It wasn't until my eight grade science class that it was even mentioned to be a theory and it wasn't until 10th that this was said multiple times throughout the year. My seventh grade teacher even tried to convince me that it fit the bible (the problem isn't so much that I believe it doesn't fit, as that he is going to such lengths to get me to assume it is true). After going through this for many years, it's no wonder that most people so readily believe in it and throw away even the possibility of ID. This extreme stress on a mere theory what I wish to be abolished.

As for teaching ID in school, I see where those who are against it come from. Though a common creator doesn't necessarily mean divine, that's typically the case. This idea seems like a huge stretch to be putting into our education system and when backed with nothing could cause some major fights (something like Columbine). Added onto these are the other possible beliefs, such as the flying spaghetti monster. This is why, to avoid future controversy, I suggest that neither be taught.

Lord Pheonix wrote:Even if you define atheism like that, they are still without religion as they don't believe in any form of higher power. Still does not make them a religion.

Religion doesn't require a higher power. It is simply a belief system.

Lord Pheonix wrote:There is no "Church of atheism"

The Church is only in Christianity. That is just one religion, genius.

Lord Pheonix wrote:no tax breaks

Do researchers on the subject of evolution not get grants?

Lord Pheonix wrote:no forcing themselves into law

I beg to differ

Lord Pheonix wrote:no complaining about every little thing that could be considered "insulting" in media, and most importantly no annoying me with talk.

Then what do you call the Freedom From Religion Foundation?

Lord Pheonix wrote:And Christians are evolutionists? WTF?

Yes, many are. It is called theistic evolution. They find ways to supposedly fit evolution into the bible. You'd be surprised that most Christians are theistic evolutionists, and it's no surprise after the kind of education I've received; sounds like it was even worse for Rot. And college is supposed to be 10x as stressed.

..............did you just say that if they put the theory of Intelligent Design in school it could cause a school shooting?

And I used the "church of...." as its a general term for a religous bases such as Christianity, Catholicism, Mormons, Judaism, and pretty much every religion has some sort of place of worship with the words "Church of" or some kind of prefix to it.

Should I go through and list every single possible way of naming a place of worship just for you to get it?

Lord Pheonix wrote:..............did you just say that if they put the theory of Intelligent Design in school it could cause a school shooting?

Emphasis on could.

Lord Pheonix wrote:And I used the "church of...." as its a general term for a religous bases such as Christianity, Catholicism, Mormons, Judaism, and pretty much every religion has some sort of place of worship with the words "Church of" or some kind of prefix to it.

I find it insulting when people put Catholics and Christians in a different category. Catholics are Christians.

Lord Pheonix wrote:Should I go through and list every single possible way of naming a place of worship just for you to get it?

No, I'm good. But I should think that you wouldn't need a place of worship, what with it taught in schools and colleges so much and there being no divine to worship.

CivBase wrote:No, atheism is not believing in the supernatural and/or divine.

Indeed.

CivBase wrote:Most Christians are evolutionists too.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that, but at least some are.

CivBase wrote:This thread is for discussion and debate on whether ID and Darwinism should be taught in school, not about disproving either side. Not only did he not add anything to the discussion, but he successfully insulted Christianity several times.

Indeed.

Lord Pheonix wrote:You said nothing right in that post.

No, he definitely said something.

Lord Pheonix wrote:Even if you define atheism like that, they are still without religion as they don't believe in any form of higher power. Still does not make them a religion.

No, that's the actual definition for atheism. And since religion doesn't necessarily involve a higher being, just usually does...

Lord Pheonix wrote:There is no "Church of atheism", no tax breaks, no forcing themselves into law, no complaining about every little thing that could be considered "insulting" in media, and most importantly no annoying me with talk.

Oh, sorry, I wasn't listening. I was too busy remembering how we weren't allowed to say "Merry Christmas" or have Christian symbols associated with Christmas anywhere in public on Christmas.

Lord Pheonix wrote:And Christians are evolutionists? WTF?

Some are. Not everyone believes in a literal seven day creation. Some believe in a metaphorical advancement. I went over it earlier in the thread.

CivBase wrote:So, there is a lot going on here, but I feel like I should throw out some general views of mine. Here we go...

One thing I don't like is that macro evolution is taught from a very young age, before you even know it's a theory. Who here didn't read about dinosaurs living 500 million years ago when you were five or six? As soon as the seventh grade I had nearly an entire semester devoted to the subject. It wasn't until my eight grade science class that it was even mentioned to be a theory and it wasn't until 10th that this was said multiple times throughout the year. My seventh grade teacher even tried to convince me that it fit the bible (the problem isn't so much that I believe it doesn't fit, as that he is going to such lengths to get me to assume it is true). After going through this for many years, it's no wonder that most people so readily believe in it and throw away even the possibility of ID. This extreme stress on a mere theory what I wish to be abolished.

As for teaching ID in school, I see where those who are against it come from. Though a common creator doesn't necessarily mean divine, that's typically the case. This idea seems like a huge stretch to be putting into our education system and when backed with nothing could cause some major fights (something like Columbine). Added onto these are the other possible beliefs, such as the flying spaghetti monster. This is why, to avoid future controversy, I suggest that neither be taught.

Fair enough. However, people who believe in the flying spaghetti monster, how do they believe life began? I would think they either believe in some form of creationism or macro evolution, yes? So I don't see the problem, persay. One doesn't have to teach the Bible version of creationism, after all.

CivBase wrote:Religion doesn't require a higher power. It is simply a belief system.

Indeed.

CivBase wrote:The Church is only in Christianity. That is just one religion, genius.

Indeed.

CivBase wrote:Do researchers on the subject of evolution not get grants?

Indeed (again).

CivBase wrote:I beg to differ

General indeed.

CivBase wrote:Then what do you call the Freedom From Religion Foundation?

Lol.

CivBase wrote:Yes, many are. It is called theistic evolution. They find ways to supposedly fit evolution into the bible. You'd be surprised that most Christians are theistic evolutionists, and it's no surprise after the kind of education I've received; sounds like it was even worse for Rot. And college is supposed to be 10x as stressed.

Again, I'll insert that I don't think most Christians are theistic evolutionists.

Lord Pheonix wrote:..............did you just say that if they put the theory of Intelligent Design in school it could cause a school shooting?

Looking back...I think he did.

Lord Pheonix wrote:And I used the "church of...." as its a general term for a religous bases such as Christianity, Catholicism, Mormons, Judaism, and pretty much every religion has some sort of place of worship with the words "Church of" or some kind of prefix to it.

Should I go through and list every single possible way of naming a place of worship just for you to get it?

What's funny is that, rather than responding to all his points, you chose one, which was more of a sarcastic remark, and picked away at that. The point, Pheonix, is that by definition, atheists don't believe in gods or higher beings, and by definition, religion does not necessarily have to involve a god or higher being.

CivBase wrote:Emphasis on could.

Arguably, practically anything can cause a school shooting. I normally stick with schizophrenia as being a leading cause, though.

CivBase wrote: I find it insulting when people put Catholics and Christians in a different category. Catholics are Christians.

We've been over this.

CivBase wrote:No, I'm good. But I should think that you wouldn't need a place of worship, what with it taught in schools and colleges so much and there being no divine to worship.

"Thank you for your poll PiEman.""Oh, why yourwelcome good sir. It's always good to recieve thanks for putting effort into something you're not even involved in, just to help both sides of the argument."

Lord Pheonix wrote:Its so hard to believe that it took billions of years for everything on earth to become what it is today, but you believe all this happened in only 7 days?

And here we get into my "Matrix Theory".

Since God belongs, of course, to that most Holy of Professions (The Engineer) he created the World according to an exact standard. Since He created the universe (If He exists) He would have 'programmed' all the laws governing passage of time in the Universe.

Think of the world as a computer. If a Programmer spent a thousand years programming it, how would the Program see it? How would the Program know it is a program if the Programmer didn't wish it to be?

Aw hell, screw what I said, I just believe that Evolution should be taught as a THEORY. Until this semester, Macroevolution was always presented as THEORY.

ReconToaster wrote: I'm saying I see no logical justification to believe in one.

I'm too lazy to go over the whole win-win vs win-lose and win-lose vs lose-lose thingy I did the last time we had a religious debate, so before I do, do you remember that? If not, I'll go over it again.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Aw hell, screw what I said, I just believe that Evolution should be taught as a THEORY. Until this semester, Macroevolution was always presented as THEORY.

Maybe in high school... but did they tell you that when you read about dinosaurs? This is one of my major problems with it being taught in school. And even in high school, it is given far to much attention for a theory.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Aw hell, screw what I said, I just believe that Evolution should be taught as a THEORY. Until this semester, Macroevolution was always presented as THEORY.

Maybe in high school... but did they tell you that when you read about dinosaurs? This is one of my major problems with it being taught in school. And even in high school, it is given far to much attention for a theory.

Dinosaurs aren't a theroy though.

Unless you really think that those fossiles just came out of thin air.

KrAzY wrote:if you do some research you would find that scientists have been able to create RNA using simple chemical reactions that would have taken place while the world was forming... these tests involve a lot of toxins that would have been found in volcanoes, a lot of water, and a lot of electricity.

The RNA over time changes to survive better in its environment

RNA however is Pre-life... as RNA itself is not alive... it is lifelike but it is not life. they think that given enough time and favorable conditions the RNA will combine with enough random materials (this adding of extra materials to their "genetics" (the RNA is basically just a molecule from a chemical reaction that reproduces on its own) is expected to mutate into actual DNA somewhere in the next 1 - 20 years... which would be life from nothing

it might happen... it might not.... theres a lot of stuff online and in books explaining the experiment (which has been going on for like 30 years)

i'm not saying thats exactly how it happened... but IMO it is the most likely explanation

I've heard about these tests, and I certainly do find it intriguing.

I don't know which experiments those were, but they were the experiments I'm thinking of, they also produced amounts of tar that was toxic.

Of course, I think that experiment was more along the lines of producing Amino Acids from base chemicals and lightning.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

CivBase wrote:That's great, but I really don't care. Maybe people are just afraid of death, but you don't can't prove that.

Normally I find you have good points L0d3x, but this disappointed me.

L0d3x normally has good points? The few times I've seen him debate, he hasn't done much but whine and complain in ignorance.

Only when it comes to religion. He's pretty good when he really knows his stuff.

Alright, we had pretty much reached conflict resolution before the storm showed its face. Here we go again...

*Catches breath

Alright Civ, your turn first.

Civ wrote: I said this is not a thread about which religion is right (I consider evolution to be a religion).

So, you say that... and then you say this...

Civ wrote:Religion runs by faith, which is why it's religion.

That's quite a contradiction for one single post. To have faith in something is to believe without conclusive, or even suggestive evidence. Evolution is not a religion because it was determined AFTER suggestive evidence was gathered.

Religions, on the other hand, tend to be conceived long before anyone looks for information that "fits" with its restriction.

Civ wrote:Most scientists in history were religious.

uh... I challenge you to a dual. Many famous scientists may have spoken of being religious, but most of today's famous, looked back upon scientists also lived in a time period where disagreeing with the Church could have you tortured to death so.....

Einstein used the term "God" to describe any and all things that he could not explain. Even if he did believe in a "god," he was not a follower of any organized religion. There's a big difference.

Carl Sagan, The greatest person of all time, was also Atheist... so I win.

Rot wrote:That's funny, because for a book of "fair tales", it has quite a bit of historical accuracy.

Says who? Honestly, what in contrast to the bible is proving its historical accuracy to you? There are MANY reports of MANY different people in MANY different areas of the world who were described to have had MANY similar traits to those of the supposed "Jesus" fellow. I'm just curious as to what you're basing your assumption that the bible is historically accurate off of. I'm not denying that it is...

Rot wrote:So before you accuse creationism of not making sense since it assumes something has always been, look in the mirror, because all approaches to the beginning of the universe, religious or otherwise, do.

It hurts a bit to say it Rot, but well done.

Rot wrote:I'm glad someone who doesn't necessarily believe in the Bible at least knows the most basic of stories.

Yeah, I know all about it, like that guy, Onan, who turned to salt for jacking off Oh the stupid people!

Rot wrote:Cavalry? L0d3x is a stubborn twit who doesn't know what he's talking about, and so that just means one person has arrived. Now, if Vigil will read through the thread (it isn't that long) and get himself up to date with the debate so far, we can continue.

I was more just a tad relieved to have some Atheists come out of the closet to help me out... though they disappoint me.

Rot wrote:If we still agree that micro evolution is synonymous with natural selection, then I agree with you one hundred percent.

The thing is, Macro Evolution is just Micro Evolution on a much larger scale. Micro evolution takes place over decades, while Macro evolution takes place over some tens of millions of years. What are your views on humans and apes coming from a common ancestor? Could we not have, over millions of years, come to stand up on two feet, and begin using advanced tools?

These are the things I consider when I think of Macro Evolution. The Cambrian explosion is Darwinism, not Evolution. They are not synonymous. I'm glad you agree on that.

Rot wrote:But Recon and I practically agree on this subject, now? We both agree that macro evolution shouldn't be taught as fact, that intelligent design isn't completely baseless, and I don't think he's entirely against a cameo for intelligent design to ensure macro evolution is taught objectively and as theory.

Yeah, we pretty much are on the same page with regard to all that stuff at this point. The only difference I would make is the gravity of the mentioning of ID. It can be said that "Some believe that there is a God." Much more than that is too much in my opinion.

Civ wrote:No, atheism is not believing in the supernatural and/or divine.

Atheism means to either not believe in a god, or actively believe that there is no god. End of discussion.

Civ wrote:Who here didn't read about dinosaurs living 500 million years ago when you were five or six?

*Raises hand* I was taught 65 million but... you know... whatever.

Civ wrote:it's no wonder that most people so readily believe in it and throw away even the possibility of ID.

But... macro evolution does not, in any way, rule out, or even give evidence against Intelligent Design. The only thing it hurts is "literal" creationism.

Civ wrote:This idea seems like a huge stretch to be putting into our education system and when backed with nothing could cause some major fights (something like Columbine).

It is a big stretch, but I'm not afraid of something like columbine happening. I'm afraid of losing security over the progression of human intellectual thinking.

Pie wrote:Recon and Rot should get on top of the Sears Tower with baseball bats, and fight this out like men!

You guys are wasting your time. The thing is you can't prove either side of the argument, you can just make your view "seem" more believable.

I don't believe in a superbeing that created everything, but I also realise that the big bang theory has holes in it.

However, and this may come as a surprise to some of you, I do believe in afterlife. I would not normallly, but an experience when I was younger basically proved to me that...well there most certainly is at least one form of afterlife.

It's simple really, us humans have very limited capabilities. We can only reason a finite amount, and as the universe is infinitely large, we will never know all of it's secrets.

So like any other religious debate, neither side is correct for the simple reason that nobody knows how the universe really works. I find it very interesting to see what man has created, but in truth we really haven't achieved that much yet. Our understanding of the laws that govern our own planet is alsy very limited, the various "approximate" theories we have thought out clearly illustrate that we have no complete understanding of this. So who are we to reason about stuff beyond our own planet when we don't even understand this yet?

Darwinism happens to be the essential basis for all free interaction. Hell, there is even a term 'Economic Darwinism' which has to do with the free market.

L0d3x wrote:Didn't feel like reading all the pages...but the Bible is just a fairy tale book that somehow managed to get some blind fools to believe it.

Quite possibly true, but it DOES still teach a good moral foundation. The only real problem with the bible is that people take it as literal and and absolutely truthful.

L0d3x wrote:Also, every single person who works for the church should be arrested for attempting to brainwash the entire society.

"A religion is just a cult with political power"

L0d3x wrote:I mean..."the water went aside so little Jesus could go through the sea"??Come on...

That was Moses...at least TRY to act intelligent when you're in this kind of argument. Didn't you ever see the animated 'Prince of Egypt'?

L0d3x wrote:And to everyone who believes creationism...if that is true than something else must have created these beings eh? There is no way in hell that they just were "magically" there.

It's funny how that's such a double-edged sword. Both sides in terms of divine creation and random chance both of those rely on a bit of 'magic'

L0d3x wrote:Aside from my views, there are still too many unknowns in this universe to be sure about anything. But I doubt that some super being made it all. People just believe that stuff because they're afraid of death.

Not so much death. More fear of life. People couldn't understand the world around them the way it really is.

Douglas Adams has an article in 'The Salmon of Doubt' concerning this. He compares mankinds belief that the world was made for him to a puddle. The puddle fits perfectly in the hole it's in and thus believes the hole was made for it. And as the world is very useless unto itself, its infinately more useful to others.

So seeing as how we need food, and those rocks over there are great for bludgeoning animals to death, those rocks must have been MEANT for us to bludgeon animals to death with them. This can't just be chance, the world MUST have been made for us.

But that was just the seeds. The true establishment of religion was for the purpose of control and containment. But this really isn't a religious argument, even if creationism is a solely religious debate.

Vigil wrote:I'm a man of Science, and I need evidence and factual proof to believe anything. That does not mean I'm not closed to the possible existance of God. There are many things we don't understand yet, and as we advance as a species, we will learn more about the world around us and how it works, so it's possible they'll determine it eventually.

Overall though, the Biblical God is pretty much a nonsensical being. I'd sooner believe a Halo-style 'Mantel' process than the Biblical God.

"Is God both willing and able to prevent evil?Then whenst cometh evil?Is he willing but not able?Then he is not omnipotentIs he able but not willing?Then he is malevalentIs he neither able nor willing?Then why call him God?"

Lord Pheonix wrote:Of course it should be taught as theory, it IS a theory and there is no proof so we can not teach it as fact.

You no nothing of the scientific process then. It needs proof just to become a Theory. In Science, there is no such thing as fact.

BBJynne wrote:They both were made by scientists pheonix...

Philosophers are not scientists.

CivBase wrote:I said this is not a thread about which religion is right (I consider evolution to be a religion).

Then you would have a distorted perception.

CivBase wrote:Why stop at the church? Let's just get rid of all peaceable assembly.

Damn PETA!!!!

And Civ, Religion isn't a peaceable assembly by nature.

CivBase wrote:First off, that was Moses, not Jesus. Secondly, "nothing exploded and then came EVERYTHING!" Drop the fight now.

Civ, the true concept of the Big Bang isn't that matter directly exploded into everything from nothing. It's based on a concentration of energy that collected into a few photons and blah blah blah until we have hydrogen which was naturely attracted to other hydrogens because of gravity. These, combined with some of that energy formed stars, in which nuclear fusion turns Hydrogen into the elements up to Iron. Once the Star's core is all Iron, it Novas and in that explosion the other elements were made. So on and so forth.

CivBase wrote:Nope. That's because God (there is no "they") forever was and forever will be.

And that makes more sense?

CivBase wrote:And when has religion ever said this is 100% fact with proof that you cannot deny?

Never, because religion never has proof. They just claim 100% fact that you can't deny or you'll go to hell and fear you into believing them. Does the term 'god-fearing' ring a bell?

CivBase wrote:I consider atheism to be a religion, and most atheists are evolutionists. I consider that to be a religion.

Atheism IS accepted as a religion, right along side Satanism (which oddly is an derivitive of the Catholic faith) by pretty much all parties, including the Military.

Evolutionism isn't based on faith and thus can't be a religion.

Lord Pheonix wrote:Atheism is being WITHOUT a religion, you can't just go and classify it as a religion.

It's based still on a belief structure. And it IS officially a religion.

Lord Pheonix wrote:What if I go and start calling Christianity a Cult as most cultists are religious?

Since when was Christianity NOT a cult?

Rotaretilbo wrote:That's funny, because for a book of "fair tales", it has quite a bit of historical accuracy. Supernatural events aside, it is treated as factual.

Not that there are any works of fiction in existence that draw from reality...

Rotaretilbo wrote:Because obviously every single member of every single church is brainwashed. But teachers telling children in school that macro evolution is fact and the only possibility for Earth's history, that's not brainwashing at all.

touche. Then again I'm opposed to both of those...so really it's jsut further proof that I'm the smartest person ever.

Rotaretilbo wrote:Ah, I see you are very educated in the thing you are criticizing. You are clearly an expert. Aren't you science types normally supposed to research both sides before making claims about either?

I at least try. But I have as much chance of understanding the Bible as I had reading Tolkien's book about the creation of Middle-Earth. Trust me, I tried.

Rotaretilbo wrote:then you probably didn't read the part where the purely scientific approach to the big bang also requires for something to have simply magically existed since before time.

Though an 'intelligent being' being the catalyst seems the least plausible.

[quote="Rotaretilbo"]Never thought I'd see someone as bad at debating as Pie...

Oh, they do exist. They're quite common in the vast fields of the internet.

Rotaretilbo wrote:But most organized religions that read out of the Bible tend to disagree on the little issues. Catholics decided to add a whole bunch of stuff, and Mormonism is kind of like a joke of a religion, but most of the Protestant faiths all agree on the core aspects of the Bible.

It happens. I think schools should bring back teaching the Bible as literature. So both the religious and nonreligious get more in-depth knowledge of the stories.

Rotaretilbo wrote:There isn't necessarily no evidence, though I will admit that there is a decent number of Protestants who don't bother to look into the evidences. The one thing we obviously can't conclusively prove is that there is or isn't a God.

CivBase wrote:Who here didn't read about dinosaurs living 500 million years ago when you were five or six? As soon as the seventh grade I had nearly an entire semester devoted to the subject. It wasn't until my eight grade science class that it was even mentioned to be a theory and it wasn't until 10th that this was said multiple times throughout the year.

You learn about Dinosaurs in 10th grade? That would explain a lot.

But Dinosaurs aren't evolution at all. Dinosaurs existed. End of story.

CivBase wrote:As for teaching ID in school, I see where those who are against it come from. Though a common creator doesn't necessarily mean divine, that's typically the case.

Never heard of an ID theory that wasn't divine.

CivBase wrote:I find it insulting when people put Catholics and Christians in a different category. Catholics are Christians.

I was raised Catholic. They really aren't the same thing.

Rotaretilbo wrote:Oh, sorry, I wasn't listening. I was too busy remembering how we weren't allowed to say "Merry Christmas" or have Christian symbols associated with Christmas anywhere in public on Christmas.

Damn, Rot. I swear you live in the most repressed area in the country.

and n/o, but nothing else you said in that post had substance, as I'm sure you can understand. Personally I prefer not quoting anything I can't truly respond/add to.

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:Pascal's Wager.

Which still has the loophole of 'cross-fingers' belief. I'm also quite sure that the Wager was never meant to be taken seriously. Nor was Pascal particularly original in that idea.

And to clarify my personal views: I believe in Macro-evolution, but only believe micro-evolution should be taught. And I mean that as exclusivity. Micro-evolution ONLY. Otherwise it'd be Micro-focus with mention of Macro and creationism.

L0d3x wrote:You guys are wasting your time. The thing is you can't prove either side of the argument, you can just make your view "seem" more believable.

I don't believe in a superbeing that created everything, but I also realise that the big bang theory has holes in it.

However, and this may come as a surprise to some of you, I do believe in afterlife. I would not normallly, but an experience when I was younger basically proved to me that...well there most certainly is at least one form of afterlife.

It's simple really, us humans have very limited capabilities. We can only reason a finite amount, and as the universe is infinitely large, we will never know all of it's secrets.

So like any other religious debate, neither side is correct for the simple reason that nobody knows how the universe really works. I find it very interesting to see what man has created, but in truth we really haven't achieved that much yet. Our understanding of the laws that govern our own planet is alsy very limited, the various "approximate" theories we have thought out clearly illustrate that we have no complete understanding of this. So who are we to reason about stuff beyond our own planet when we don't even understand this yet?

KristallNacht wrote:Civ, dinosaurs living has nothing to do with evolution whatsoever

In truth, we know very little about dinosaurs. We're just guessing as to what they looked like and how they acted based on what we've found. But by anylizing the bones of a T-Rex, you can't really tell that it was a carnavor, you just have to infer that by it's teeth, size, and body structure. Dinosaurs are almost always the opener to evolution.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote: I said this is not a thread about which religion is right (I consider evolution to be a religion).

So, you say that... and then you say this...

Civ wrote:Religion runs by faith, which is why it's religion.

That's quite a contradiction for one single post. To have faith in something is to believe without conclusive, or even suggestive evidence. Evolution is not a religion because it was determined AFTER suggestive evidence was gathered.

But it's not fact. Those who believe it happened must believe it through faith.

ReconToaster wrote:Religions, on the other hand, tend to be conceived long before anyone looks for information that "fits" with its restriction.

So? This has nothing to do with faith. It still is not proven, so you still must believe it.

This thread is not about whether evolution/atheism is a religion, so please just drop it.

ReconToaster wrote:

Civ wrote:Most scientists in history were religious.

uh... I challenge you to a dual. Many famous scientists may have spoken of being religious, but most of today's famous, looked back upon scientists also lived in a time period where disagreeing with the Church could have you tortured to death so.....

Not all scientists came from Europe. Not all discoverys contradicted the church. And notice how I said IN HISTORY. Also, most scientists did not live durring this time. The church only had this sort of power for two or three hunrded years.

ReconToaster wrote:Einstein used the term "God" to describe any and all things that he could not explain. Even if he did believe in a "god," he was not a follower of any organized religion. There's a big difference.

Einstein was a Jew.

ReconToaster wrote:Carl Sagan, The greatest person of all time, was also Atheist... so I win.

Whoopee, you found one scientist that's an atheist. Good work, now what about the other several million?